23.03.2013 Views

Groundwater arsenic in the Red River delta, Vietnam ... - Fiva

Groundwater arsenic in the Red River delta, Vietnam ... - Fiva

Groundwater arsenic in the Red River delta, Vietnam ... - Fiva

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Jessen et al., manuscript to be submitted to Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta<br />

The isotope data (Fig. 9), however, show that <strong>the</strong> water sampled <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> well field<br />

dur<strong>in</strong>g pump<strong>in</strong>g is different from <strong>the</strong> water sampled <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> channel, as reflected by <strong>the</strong><br />

deviation between <strong>the</strong> 18 O-value of <strong>the</strong> groundwater and <strong>the</strong> 18 O-value of <strong>the</strong> channel<br />

water on day 34. The 18 O-values <strong>in</strong> N1 and N4 at day 34 are higher, relative to that of<br />

<strong>the</strong> channel, because of 18 O-enrichment of <strong>the</strong> channel water dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> dry season,<br />

when <strong>the</strong> channel is not connected to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Red</strong> <strong>River</strong> (Larsen et al., 2008). The water<br />

drawn to N1 and N4 dur<strong>in</strong>g pump<strong>in</strong>g must <strong>the</strong>refore be channel water that has<br />

<strong>in</strong>filtrated through <strong>the</strong> channel bottom dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> dry season.<br />

A simple PHREEQC transport model was constructed to simulate conservative<br />

mix<strong>in</strong>g dur<strong>in</strong>g transport between <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>itial groundwater and <strong>in</strong>filtrated channel water<br />

with a composition correspond<strong>in</strong>g to that observed around day 34 <strong>in</strong> N1. The model<br />

consisted of a one-dimensional flow-tube with 32 cells, each 3.3 m long. The<br />

observation well N1 was represented by cell 20 and N4 by cell 25, and <strong>the</strong><br />

correspond<strong>in</strong>g location of <strong>the</strong> pump<strong>in</strong>g wells were at cell 32. Us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> forward-<br />

backward flow direction option <strong>in</strong> PHREEQC, for <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>itial 34 shifts a forward flow<br />

was applied, directly followed by 20 shifts of backward flow. Apply<strong>in</strong>g a time step of 1<br />

day per shift dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> first 34 days, this set-up yielded <strong>the</strong> observed five days travel<br />

time and a 16 m distance between <strong>the</strong> two observation wells. After day 34 a longer time<br />

step of 1.3 days was applied, correspond<strong>in</strong>g to a decrease <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> flow velocity. By<br />

optimization for <strong>the</strong> major solutes, a dispersivity of 2.3 m was achieved. This<br />

dispersivity value is with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> range typically observed for flow lengths of 10 1 -10 2 m<br />

(Gelhar et al., 1992). The match between <strong>the</strong> observations and <strong>the</strong> model l<strong>in</strong>es for N1<br />

and N4 <strong>in</strong> Figs. 6, 7 and 8 <strong>in</strong>dicates that <strong>the</strong> above described flow regime control <strong>the</strong><br />

major chemistry variation of <strong>the</strong> groundwater dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> experiment.<br />

22

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!